Previews of 3.2

[Jeremy Pritchard]

USN Ferry CVE's are now all Bogue Class and have a different Icon (the Icon is the same as the Aircraft carrying CVE's, but there are no blue aircraft on the flight deck). They will now be a lot easier to spot.

[moore4807]

I hadnt even thought about FM2's - was just using up F4F's from surplus when I did this - so how about these options?

1) FM2 were same as Martlets right? (British export version) so CVE's get hard coded to FM2's, this will work for for both Brits and US. is it possible to change one of the bases to produce ONLY FM2's so supply isn't outstripped by demand, (maybe reduce optional changes by one at East coast base???)
Can this be done by coding or will it have to be a house rule?

2) Yes, limit CVE's to fighter escorts only(CAP work) and code max of 3 CVE's/CVL's per support TF. This will probably raise some resistance but it keeps IJN from being totally overrun as you stated. Again coding possible or house rule?

3) Can Casablanca CVE be coded to 1 FM2 group - CAP only, Bogue CVE - ferry only , would that open up one more CVE/CVL ship class that could be Dive-bomber or Torp equipped? This way ALL CVE/CVL would be type-crossed with ship name as to capability and still satisfy MOST of the options requested here?

Or am I just shooting at the moon here?

[IntellWeenie]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
Another problem could be that USN CVE's turn into CAP weapons of mass destruction. Those 2x Casablanca groups could possibly have 40+ FM2's (if TB's were removed), and a TF of just 5 of these groups could have upwards of 200 planes on CAP.

Is there any way to change the code that calculates the amount of A/C for CAP so that CVEs generate 2/3 as much as normal?

Also, change the CVE Carrier Point value from 1 to 2. This will make it much harder to create massive CVE TFs that are offensively useful. The breaking point would be 3-4 CVE groups per TF, assuming leaders of about a 5 or 6 rating. The 5 group TF Jeremy mentioned would thus need an 8 or 9 air leader assigned to it to have any chance of mustering a good strike. Look at the LCC check tables in the manual and you'll see what I mean! (I would leave CVLs at 1 point; they were intended to work as part of a carrier task force.)

I would leave the TBF/M squadrons in place as I think that's more historically accurate. IIRC, they were used mainly for ASW operations and amphibious support.

[pasternakski]

Thanks, Jeremy, the differentiation between air group equipped and non-air group equipped CVEs will be much appreciated.

I agree with Intell (I ain't callin' ya weenie, pal) that it would be good to preserve the historical function of air group equipped CVEs by retaining the TBF/M squadrons. I hope that his suggestions are practicable and can serve as the solution.

I also agree with everyone's comments about FM2s being the correct fighter plane for CVE squadrons. As I recall, this is historically correct (but I'm too lazy to go dig that info back up).

Ain't I an agreeable SOB, though?

[Ranger-75]

Moore, FM@s were Wildcats dorduced by GM's Eastern Aircraft Division. Ther essentially the same as the latest models that Grumman made (the FM2 was more powerful than the earlier wildcats), but in the US War Dept's infininte ability to make everything as complicated as possible, they assigned different model designations to the GM produced Wildcats. (it goe even worse with Sherman tanks, every producer had a different model designation, sometines the only thing different was the engine - different model #)

The British called them Martlets initially but later adopted the US Navy's name wildcat to lessen the confusion.

F4F-4 and FM1 and FM2 all had capacity for 2 250lb bombs. Thses models also had folding wings.

One of my books says the FM1 had 4 .50 cals MGs no mention of the FM2's armament. The F4F-4 and all later types were supposed to have 6 .50 cals.

The FM2 was the most numerous Wildcat, more than twice as many FM2s as everything else put together. I just don't have the date the FM2 was introduced handy.

Since several CVEs carried an Avenger squadron (again, some made by Grumman, the TBF and some made by GM's EAC divison - the TBMs) I wouldn't like it if the CVEs only had fighters.

Lastly, Hellcats were used on some CVEs but the corsairs were really too large for these little ships to operate correctly. They could have carrier Dauntlesses too, but by that time the Avenger was a better multi role aircraft than the Dauntless. I still like the Dauntless.

I think it is more a matter of player discipline in using the CVEs for their intended tasks, that is support groups for landings and for ASW missions. For the latter, make a small TF with a CVE and a few DD / DE units and have it go from port to port. it will act as a "decoy" and chew up IJN subs.

Any player who uses CVE groups as fast carrier task forces - bombing Japan from across the map, etc., is doing what I refer to as a "stupid human trick".

[pasternakski]

I vote for this (not that anybody died and made this a democracy):

-segregate the Allied CVEs into air group/no air group types as Jeremy has already proposed.
-Put FM-2s and TBF/Ms on air group equipped CVEs as seems historically appropriate.
-Limit the power of massed CVEs as Intell has suggested.
-Work out the other details from the contributions here and from what the design team has determined should be done.

Now that I have made my p*ssified statement, I have just one thing to add:

I hope that this permutation of PacWar is a big improvement, both in terms of historicity and competitiveness. In my opinion, the original SSI game (which I still have and play, both solo and against living victims) was excellent. Some of the revisions since (and I will refrain from naming names, especially v. 3.0) I saw as being unfortunate steps backward. 3.1 interests me to a degree, primarily because of the innovative treatment given the India (and the rest of South Asia) theater. I still think that the game lacks the "snap and zap" of the original in many ways (I was a real b**** even then as the Allies in denying Rangoon to the Japanese and punishing any Yamamoto foolhardy enough to bring his carriers to turn the "Port Moresby corner").

I don't want to take the space to flesh that out here, but would be happy to for those who may disagree. I am just expressing my feeling, as the old Gordon Lightfoot song says, "I don't know where we went wrong, but the feeling's gone, and I just can't get it back."

I wanna get it back. And I don't care that WITP is going to come along soon and swallow up this universe. I will still play PacWar from time to time, and enjoy it on its own merits.

[Nomad]

One of the problems with 'historical' CVE air group assignments is that CVEs were equiped in a varity of ways for different missions. Sometimes they had all fighters, sometimes fighters and TBF/Ms, and sometimes they were used to ferry aircraft.

[moore4807]

Well real quick,
I am pleased this post got so many responses- try to touch on all the points (not necessarily in order...)

1) Intell's point about CVE's cost is good -probably better plan than mine. All I was going for was Class of Ship cross typed to air group for simplicity first, ability second. I am NOT against the ASW function and didn't mean to imply that the only way to use them is fighters - I DID say that - I was just looking to simplify the groups (maybe by making another "class" of CVE)

The reason is I do tend to use the CVE's as screens for my fleet carrier TF's and just as Jeremy said - I sweep the skies clean for Fleet and who cares if I sink 25 CVE's doing so - it decimates the AI who mindlessly throw the kitchen sink at me... this usually leads to a quick finish which is why I constantly go after Paramushiro early in the War - it makes the AI go goofy trying to get me out of thier back yard + usually do pretty good damage to shipping too... Am I cheating - hell yeah, but it works pretty well against real players too. (most sit there wondering what the hell I'm doing til its too late and I'm in thru the Aleutians, while theyre down island hopping the South Pacific - then they race back north too late -giving my pilots excellent experience and practice) :p

2) Ranger75 - absolutely correct info on FM2/F4F -thanks! After posting I read up on FM2's, they had 4 .50 cal. MG too - FM series but didn't carry as much ammo as later F4F's (pilots clamored for the upgrade - they listened to them)
As far as my stupid human trick - I dont use them from PH, I base them at Dutch Harbor from the beginning until Paramushiro is taken. (I dont mind the criticism -just alternative thinking...) I do however agree there has to be a way to limit this "cheat" which is why I manually put F4F's only on em and no more than 3 CVE's in support TF's = MANY TF's to keep track of from late 43 on, but it works, along with getting experience for the fighter groups.

3)Pasternaski (god I hope I got it right! VBG!)
I understand your point - but from the flip side of the coin - no improvement will satisfy everyone - just as is shown here - not that I disagree entirely with your point - just that the China theatre alone could suck up the entire actions for either side and make it a drawn out BORING 2 player game -or overwhelming for the technically advanced player vs the novice/intermediate player. The new versions are a more balanced and defineable scope of play for those who aren't grognards... No offense intended....my point of view is ALWAYS skewed...

whew I think I'll shut up now and take it away Gents!

[Jeremy Pritchard]

MOST of the changes (a lot of big ones there!) were because of problems expressed about the original game.

#1. It was too easy to conquer China.

China was really under-represented in the game. There should have been twice the bases, and twice the troops to really show China. Plus, without the Soviets, the IJA player could use their Manchuria forces to speedily clean up China as well. Many players would also send these troops against the British, freeing up the 4 Divisions for use against the US. Sure it was a gamble (using up all of those PP's), but it usually paid off.

#2. USN CVE's were way too powerful.

There were many 4x CVE groups in the USN, which put together will perform better then most CV groups. Having individual ships solved that problem, but created the problem about countless CVE's.

#3. Air-Transport groups being, well, dumb.

Air-Transport groups rarely ever did missions you wanted them too, usually supplying bases that you did not want supply.

#4. Main theatre of war in the Pacific.

As was said, this is a Pacific War game, and I felt that I could take away from other theatres (china) and features that didn't really work (air-transport) to enhance the fighting in the main theatre. More LCU's, more ships and more air groups were put into the Pacific on both sides.

The game is different then the original, and as was said, every change will result in someone losing a feature that they liked. It is unfortunate that PacWar is such an old game that things cannot be added without taking away other things.

[pasternakski]

Don't get me wrong, guys - I like all the versions of this game that have appeared, and I am sure that 3.2 will be a goodie, as well. I respect all of the hard work that has gone into the changes.

Maybe my preferences are more wistful than rational, but I remember such things showing up as the forlorn little boats that used to have to try to escape from Hong Kong on December 7 (and never did), the 45 fighter planes sitting on eastern Borneo, and that kind of stuff. I still wonder about the myriad changes that have taken place with regard to PT boats, DEs, PCs, and the rest of the smaller craft.

In any event, count me in as a supporter of all you and the rest of the team do, Jeremy.

But I did hate completely losing the China theater...oh, well. I guess it was purely occidental...

[CynicAl]

To the best of my knowledge, nearly all CVEs that actually operated aircraft carried a mix of fighters and bombers, and the bombers were almost exclusively TBF/Ms. The only exceptions I know of are one or two very early CVEs in the Atlantic, which operated with fighters only. This makes perfect sense in terms of their primary roles - ASW on the Atlantic convoy runs and invasion support for amphibious ops in the Pacific (and both in the Med), Avengers being the most suitable type for both missions.

The F4F-3 was the inital production Wildcat, with 4 guns/450rpg, non-folding wings, and initially no armor or self-sealing tanks (though most examples were field modified with such before they ever saw combat). The F4F-3A was basically an F4F-3 with a slightly different engine (the supply of the original powereplant ran low), but essentially the same characteristics. The F4F-4 was modified to British specifications with folding wings, 6 guns/240rpg (just half as many "shots," for a net decrease in firepower per sortie), and carried armor and self-sealing tanks from the start. It was the lowest-performing example of the mark; it was also the USN's mainstay from Midway to Santa Cruz. The FM-1 was the designation given to the F4F-4 as produced by GM's Eastern Aircraft Division. It was almost identical to the Grumman birds, except that it reverted to 4 guns/450 rpg at the request of the pilots. The FM-2 was the "ultimate" Wildcat, with a lightened airframe and an engine that was more powerful at low altitudes (though pretty useless at medium and higher altitudes); it retained the 4 gun/450rpg armament. Though performance fell off rapidly with altitude, on the deck it was easily the equal of the Hellcat or the Zero. This was the aircraft that equipped most of the CVEs for most of the war, though they might have ended up with F8Fs (another small, light aircraft) had the war continued into 1946-47.

[pasternakski]

Al's information is consistent with my research.

As I posted earlier, I am in favor of retaining the mixed air groups for CVEs where at all possible, but I can live with the idea of one CVE class (or two) without aircraft working in the replenishment role if game limits require it. As a last resort, CVEs with fighters only would be okay.

My concern all along has been with bringing definition to the role of these ships and building game mechanics that make it possible for the player to use them in these roles (which should largely reflect historical use with any reasonable "what ifs" that suggest themselves).

I think Jeremy and Co. are on the right track and trust their judgment.

[moore4807]

Pasternaski & Cynic Al - I guess thats what I read about the pilot complaint about upgrading ammo on the Wildcats, it seemed to be they were suggesting the "Wildcat" (version unspecified) was superior to FM series -if what Cynic Al said is true then my author Time/Life series)is obviously wrong - thanks for the correction.

My observation is that barring major changes, the Carrier Value in PacWar be revised to what Intell suggested - keep multiple groups on them and just penalize them as we do Fleet carriers...

By the way thanks Jeremy for the opportunity to be a part of this process...

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by moore4807
My observation is that barring major changes, the Carrier Value in PacWar be revised to what Intell suggested - keep multiple groups on them and just penalize them as we do Fleet carriers...

By the way thanks Jeremy for the opportunity to be a part of this process...

Concur completely - on both points.

[CynicAl]

What they just said.

...

I'm going to be offline for the next six to ten weeks, so y'all try not to nuke the forums while I'm gone and I'll be back one of these days.

EDIT: Back! That didn't take nearly as long as I was afraid it would.